Advertisement

The Importance of the Physical Environment to Support Individualised Care

  • Susanna Nordin
  • Marie Elf
Chapter

Abstract

The physical environment is an important part of individualised care. Creating care environments tailored towards the individual person’s needs is essential for high-quality care and is increasingly recognised as being associated with improved health and well-being among older people. Today, care should be holistic and view the person behind the disease, taking that person’s perspective and treating the patient as a unique individual. Despite the emerging focus on individualised care approaches, the physical environment is still not considered as an integral part of care, and relatively little attention has been paid to environmental aspects. However, the physical environment has a great potential to facilitate or restrict care processes in a broad range of care settings, not least in residential care facilities for older people. The present chapter focuses on ways to support the individual in terms of the physical environment.

Keywords

Care environment Design Health outcomes Individual needs Older people Residential care facilities 

References

  1. 1.
    McCormack B, McCance T. Person-centred nursing: theory, models and methods. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing; 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nordin S, McKee K, Wijk H, et al. Exploring environmental variation in residential care facilities for older people. HERD. 2016;10(2):49–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Epstein RM, Fiscella K, Lesser CS, et al. Why the nation needs a policy push on patient-centered health care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(8):1489–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mead N, Bower P. Patient-centred consultations and outcomes in primary care: a review of the literature. Patient Educ Couns. 2002;48(1):51–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sjogren K, Lindkvist M, Sandman PO, et al. Person-centredness and its association with resident well-being in dementia care units. J Adv Nurs. 2013;69(10):2196–205.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Happ MB, Williams CC, Strumpf NE, et al. Individualized care for frail elders: theory and practice. J Gerontol Nurs. 1996;22(3):6–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Innes A, Macpherson S, McCabe L. Promoting person-centred care at the front line. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation; 2006.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    National Board of Health and Welfare. Bostad i särskilt boende är den enskildes hem (in Swedish) [Housing in a residential care facility is the home of the individual]. Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen; 2011.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rowles GD, Bernard M. Environmental gerontology: making meaningful places in old age. New York: Springer; 2013.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rubinstein RL. The home environments of older people: a description of the psychosocial processes linking person to place. J Gerontol. 1989;44(2):S45–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Edvardsson D, Sandman P-O, Rasmussen B. Swedish language person centred climate questionnaire–patient version: construction and psychometric evaluation. J Adv Nurs. 2008;63(3):302–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Edvardsson D, Winblad B, Sandman P-O. Person-centred care of people with severe Alzheimer’s disease: current status and ways forward. Lancet Neurol. 2008;7(4):362–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fazio S. Person-centered care in residential settings: taking a look back while continuing to move forward. Alzheimer’s Care Today. 2008;9(2):155–61.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zeisel J. Improving person-centered care through effective design. Generations. 2013;37(3):45–52.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Joseph A (2006) Health promotion by design in long-term care settings. The Center for Health Design. http://www.healthdesign.org/research/reports/longtermcare.php Accessed 28 Mar 2018.
  16. 16.
    Papastavrou E, Acaroglu R, Sendir M, et al. The relationship between individualized care and the practice environment: an international study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015;52(1):121–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Suhonen R, Stolt M, Gustafsson M-L, et al. The associations among the ethical climate, the professional practice environment and individualized care in care settings for older people. J Adv Nurs. 2014;70(6):1356–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harris PB, McBride G, Ross C, et al. A place to heal: environmental sources of satisfaction among hospital patients. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2002;32(6):1276–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Browall M, Koinberg I, Falk H, et al. Patients’ experience of important factors in the healthcare environment in oncology care. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-Being. 2013;8:20870.  https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v8i0.20870.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Williams AM, Dawson S, Kristjanson LJ. Exploring the relationship between personal control and the hospital environment. J Clin Nurs. 2008;17(12):1601–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Edvardsson JD, Sandman PO, Rasmussen BH. Sensing an atmosphere of ease: a tentative theory of supportive care settings. Scand J Caring Sci. 2005;19(4):344–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lewin K. Field theory and experiment in social psychology. Am J Sociol. 1939;44(6):868–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lawton MP, Nahemow L. Ecology and the aging process. In: Lawton CEMP, editor. The psychology of adult development and aging. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1973. p. 619–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Scheidt R, Norris-Baker C, Wahl H. The general ecological model revisited: evolution, current status, and continuing challenges. In: Aging in context: socio-physical environments, Annual review of gerontology and geriatrics, vol. 23. New York: Springer; 2003. p. 34–58.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lawton MP, Simon B. The ecology of social relationships in housing for the elderly. Gerontologist. 1968;8(2):108–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nightingale F. Notes on nursing what it is, and what it is not. London: Churchill Livingstone; 1860/1980.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dirckinck-Holmfeld K. Sansernes hospital. Copenhagen: Arkitektens Forlag; 2007.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Taylor FW. The principles of scientific management. New York: Dover; 1998.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fridell S. Rum för vårdens möten: om utformning av fysisk vårdmiljö för god vård [Architectural space for caring relationships: on the design of the physical environment for care and nursing]. Doctoral dissertation, Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan. Institutionen för arkitektur och stadsbyggnad. 1998.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    McCormack B. Person-centredness in gerontological nursing: an overview of the literature. J Clin Nurs. 2004;13(1):31–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Medeiros ABA, Enders BC, Lira ALBDC. The Florence Nightingale’s environmental theory: a critical analysis. Escola Anna Nery. 2015;19(3):518–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Huisman ERCM, Morales E, van Hoof J, et al. Healing environment: a review of the impact of physical environmental factors on users. Build Environ. 2012;58(1):70–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Parker C, Barnes S, McKee K, et al. Quality of life and building design in residential and nursing homes for older people. Ageing Soc. 2004;24(6):941–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL) Group. The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): development and general psychometric properties. Soc Sci Med. 1998;46(12):1569–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Brawley EC. Environmental design for Alzheimer’s disease: a quality of life issue. Aging Mental Health. 2001;5(2):79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nordin S, McKee K, Wallinder M, et al. The physical environment, activity and interaction in residential care facilities for older people: a comparative case study. Scand J Caring Sci. 2017;31(4):727–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Joseph A, Choi YS, Quan X. Impact of the physical environment of residential health, care, and support facilities (RHCSF) on staff and residents. A systematic review of the literature. Environ Behav. 2015;48(10):1203–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Marquardt G. Wayfinding for people with dementia: a review of the role of architectural design. HERD. 2011;4(2):75–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Marquardt G, Bueter K, Motzek T. Impact of the design of the built environment on people with dementia: an evidence-based review. HERD. 2014;8(1):127–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Cohen-Mansfield J. Non-pharmacological interventions for agitation in dementia: various strategies demonstrate effectiveness for care home residents; further research in home settings is needed. Evid Based Nurs. 2016;19(1):31.  https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102059.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Day K, Carreon D, Stump C. The therapeutic design of environments for people with dementia: a review of the empirical research. Gerontologist. 2000;40(4):397–416.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cohen-Mansfield J. Nonpharmacologic interventions for inappropriate behaviors in dementia: a review, summary, and critique. Am J Geriatr Psychiatr. 2001;9(4):361–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Nordin S, McKee K, Wijk H, et al. The association between the physical environment and the well-being of older people in residential care facilities: a multilevel analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2017;73(12):2942–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wiles J. Conceptualizing place in the care of older people: the contributions of geographical gerontology. J Clin Nurs. 2005;14(S2):100–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rubinstein RI, Parmelee PA. Attachment to place and the representation of the life course by the elderly. In: Altman I, Low SM, editors. Place attachment. New York: Springer; 1992. p. 139–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rijnaard M, van Hoof J, Janssen B, et al. The factors influencing the sense of home in nursing homes: a systematic review from the perspective of residents. J Aging Res. 2016;2016:6143645.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6143645.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    van Hoof J, Janssen M, Heesakkers C, et al. The importance of personal possessions for the development of a sense of home of nursing home residents. J Housing Elderly. 2016;30(1):35–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hamilton DK, Watkins DH. Evidence-based design for multiple building types. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2009.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Stankos M, Schwarz B. Evidence-based design in healthcare: a theoretical dilemma. Interdisciplinary Design and Research e-Journal. 2007;1(1):1–14.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Elf M, Frost P, Lindahl G, et al. Shared decision making in designing new healthcare environments-time to begin improving quality. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:114.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-0782-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Elf M, Nordin S, Het al W. A systematic review of the psychometric properties of instruments for assessing the quality of the physical environment in healthcare. J Adv Nurs. 2017;73(12):2796–816.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13281.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Nordin S, Elf M, McKee K, et al. Assessing the physical environment of older people's residential care facilities: development of the Swedish version of the Sheffield Care Environment Assessment Matrix (S-SCEAM). BMC Geriatr. 2015;15:3.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-15-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Education, Health and Social Studies, Dalarna UniversityFalunSweden
  2. 2.School of ArchitectureChalmers University of TechnologyGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations